CSS IN ELI5 ADDS MANY FEATURES! There are many features, both form and function, that are embedded in ELI5's CSS. Disabling CSS will not allow you to circumvent locked threads or enable any hidden functionalities. The CSS implemented exclusively adds functionality and extra features. If there is something wrong with the CSS that you would like us to fix, let us know, please! We may be able to help. Thanks! If you're unable to change CSS on your browser, we’re sorry for this intrusive message!

Trapwire is a computer system that gathers up video from security cameras and analyzes it. It then uses facial recognition and pattern recognition to figure out who is in these videos and alerts an actual human if it recognizes behavior that might be a threat. The system is sold to private companies like casinos or government agencies like local police forces.

So lets say you own an amusement park. You don't want any nasty terrorists blowing up your park, so you install about two hundred security cameras all over the place to keep an eye on things. But how do you monitor them all? You'd need at least 50 security people to do it effectively (nobody can really watch more than about 4 monitors at a time). And 99.99% of the time, all those security people are watching nothing dangerous happening. It's cheaper and easier to let a smart(ish) program do all the watching. The trapwire system watches all 200 video feeds and analyzes them. If it sees somebody doing something that might be "bad", it alerts one of your real, live security people and they can look for themselves.

Why is this a bad thing? Well for one, it's creepy. Nobody likes to be watched, and nobody certainly wants to be judged be some scary computer brain. It's also creepy because a lot of the things the software looks for is not necessarily bad in and of itself. If it sees somebody standing around taking pictures, it might think they're a terrorist, while in reality they're just an amateur photographer.

It's made even creepier by the fact that Stratfor (the company that makes and sells trapwire) is run by former CIA agents. It is assumed by some people that the software reports back to the federal government - possibly to the extent that the FBI or CIA can tap into any video feeds used by the system whenever they want. There is no proof of this, but as conspiracy theories go, it is very plausible.

And even though the system has been around for four of five years, and wasn't really a secret, it's a big deal now because Anonymous recently posted a whole bunch of private emails from Stratfor on Wikileaks. So it's getting lots of new publicity right now, and it's not good publicity. The emails make Stratfor look like creepy bastards, and the fact that their internal company emails were so easily compromised does not say much for their security in general. In other words, if some armchair hacktivists could steal their emails without much effort, how hard could it be for actual terrorists to screw up a trapwire system and get away some big attack? It's not the same thing at all, but that is how people think, so that is why they're upset about it at the moment.

First off, the answer here is inaccurate and incomplete. For one - Stratfor does not make and sell TrapWire! Stratfor was in a deal with the makers (Abraxas Corp -> Abraxas Apps) of TrapWire to get an 8% commission on sales that Stratfor brought in. They did this because Stratfor is a global intelligence agency and very well-connected.

No problem at all. Just one last thing, that Wired article only explains why Stratfor are creepy bastards in terms of how they deceptively marketed the product. But that's all they go into in that piece. There is, in fact, much reason to believe that the reason that you haven't heard of it till now is that they are trying to keep it secret for as long as they can, so the public doesn't get a say in whether they want it or not (as opposed to a more local surveillance system, which is monitored and managed by a local security team and company ONLY).

To think that a camera watching you in London is feeding your images into a central database run by a company formed from ex-CIA agents (including the late ex-CIA director who started the company) and tracking your identity across cameras in the US, Canada, and numerous other countries... is not some kind of secret spy surveillance system is somewhat naive, at best. And it is only the beginning of a vast intelligence gathering system that will grow and grow until the people behind it can track any person in a public place automatically and in real-time, anywhere in the world. Very much like in that show, Person of Interest.

I suspect that at the moment they are trying to cover it up as best they can, mainly because of the amount of taxpayer's money that is wasted on maintaining and running it, but also because there are many out there who don't quite agree with the need for a worldwide system of surveillance that automatically flags you as a potential terrorist when you take a picture of a bird flying over a building that uses the system. Not to mention the fact that they hint at the idea of using the system to be able to identify 'general street crime' -- not a bad idea, but when you get sent a fine for jaywalking on an empty street in the middle of the night because a camera detected your face and movement in that particular instance... Well, that's just unnecessary, and very, very uncool, IMO!

I hadn't looked at it like that because the wired article talked about how ineffective the whole system is in reality:

"In 2008, for example, the NYPD announced a new surveillance camera network for lower Manhattan, and publicly promised that it would catch terrorists before they struck. In private, police officials admitted that the cameras were more for show than for terror prevention...These video analytics systems are good at analyzing crime scenes — after the fact. They can spot a truck entering through an exit or a bag left on a subway platform. With precisely the right lighting conditions, they can occasionally identify a face. Beyond that — well, be careful about taking Stratfor’s promises and promotion as the literal truth, cautions Tim Shorrock, author of Spies for Hire: Inside the Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing. ”You’ve got to be so skeptical of what these contractors say — even to each other,” he says."

What gets used in London may be open to discussion in other countries, but utterly beyond our control. Going from analyzing suspicious activity to handing out tickets for jaywalking is still a huge leap. I would expect there to be a backlash once the system goes from being used against supposed terrorism to any kind of interference with private life, assuming that it does (although the fact that it's being run by ex-CIA and used by the CIA is indeed kind of creepy.) It would worry me if it started being used to prevent general street crime. I'm still glad CCTV cameras are still not on the table for discussion here in the US.

Oh, me too. I hadn't considered the implications of this thing until I did more research. I've since gone through all 300 or so of the mails mentioning TrapWire, and I can tell you straight up that Wired is immensely downplaying the real issues on 'why TrapWire is so (potentially) bad'. I had my reservations about linking to that article because while I generally trust Wired's research and often thorough investigations, it doesn't say anything about the potential for misuse.

And if you think about it, if it's so ineffective in preventing terrorism... What IS the point? To me, the answer is two-fold: 1) there is a LOT of money to be made from it (also read: taxpayer money to be wasted - for example, in 2007 the LA county spent $1.4 million running TrapWire for only THREE months!), and 2) if it sucks so bad for preventing terrorism, what does it actually do?... It enables you to track anyone, basically anywhere if they're in a major city, automatically and easily. Meaning you won't ever want to get on the bad side of the people behind it, or who are paying for it (i.e. corporations and the government). This last point is the main reason why people are so up in arms about it - despite how liberal you are or whatever, it's a crapload of power that can potentially be used against activists and the like, with malevolent intent (it is mentioned in one of the leaked emails how, since there is so little threat of terrorist activity in SF, they should think about using it to track activists in that area, or at least market it that way... which says enough for me.)

And don't get too cosy over there... RT has a really good video here showing just how much of the major city center is covered by ordinary CCTV... I'd encourage you to watch that vid, even if you don't like RT. It's a solid piece on the real, troubling aspects of TrapWire.

1) no one has said how anon got the data. For all we know it was an inside leak. That really wouldn't be hacking, would it?

2) just because one system was easy to get to (if it was hacking) does not mean every system is that easy. For all we know that server was in a DMZ and the core system is much deeper in the LAN.

3) I love how people think there is only one Internet. Anything you find in the niprnet isn't really a big deal. I love that hackers and anon think they will one day be able to find secrets! Everyone should really educate themselves on a system called SIPRNET. It is INACCESSIBLE from the Internet you know and love. There is no way to hack in, whatsoever. All classified material is on that network...and more networks technically.

EDIT: My apologies if this sounds douchey, my approach might have been off and I was moreso trying to inform. Sometimes I think using the "douchey" approach is a way to teach people, especially the younger generation that seems to think everything is being hacked in this world and they are losing trust in their government. Just trying to inform is all. Read through some of my other posts if you're looking for more information in a more direct manner than "shock" manner.

EDIT 2: For the sake of debate, let us replace "hacking" with "cracking" since social engineering is being discussed.

I like the idea of a lateral vote. Then you can see when people have alot of lateral votes on their posts, they are only marginally contributing. I like to think I would be the king of lateral votes based on my comment history.

It's whatever. I was on mobile and I was in bed falling asleep. If you notice my other posts are now much more organized and gramatically correct. You can't always be perfect and judging someone's complete intelligence over one post speaks of others intelligence levels.

There is no way to access the SIPRNET as it is not connected to the normal Internet in any fashion or way. It's different cabling, DNS servers, routers, etc etc. not to mention the cryptography equipment.

Well stpizz kind of has a point, hacking the way you used it as "gaining unauthorized access to a system" (which is actually cracking not hacking) encompasses social engineering which could get you into SIPRNET. You would probably have to be really good and have some crazy connections, but it is still possible. If you left it at it being inaccessible from the regular internet then you would have probably been correct.

The only way you could access it is physical access as there is no physical connection between the two networks, they even have rules on color cabling and distance on how far the SIPRNET cables have to be from the NIPRNET cables. Also, if you were somehow to obtain physical access, I'd say your chances of escaping are extremely slim. Every area is very well protected and deadly force is AUTOMATICALLY allowed without question if you're proven to not have access. There has never been a breach once in USA history. There have been leaks, but that's not the same. I'm only informing about the hacking side.

I believe there's a conflict in terminology. The guys here are using the more traditional term for hacking as, "Gaining unauthorized access to computer systems." Leaks and social engineering fall under this umbrella. If you're talking about a purely digital (no human interaction) attack on the network, they might call it cracking.

Also, "There has never been a breach once in USA history." should be noted as the status quo fallacy. Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't happen. You provide good reasons for why it's unlikely and why it's difficult, but it's important to note that it's not impossible. SIPRNET, just like its counterparts, is an imperfect system build by imperfect people, and each flaw is another foothold for someone to compromise. We're better off acknowledging that the possibility exists and being mindful of it than we are telling ourselves it's unbreakable and relaxing.

Well I agree, I'm more trying to inform that the liklihood is small due to how the system is set up. I agree with you that it can be done and complacency cannot be used, but I'm more trying to just inform people on how it works and show the level that it is at and to the degree that the government takes it.

Eh, I used to run a podunk SPRNet node and I think part of the problem is how lax real security is. The people running the connections, comsec, etc are low level enlisted who don't have a big investment in what happens to the data and treat it like an occasionally more interesting internet. Whenever we'd deal with SF guys we had to delete every mention of them from the system because they considered it extremely easy to compromise.

Physically, it's a really big deal separating the two networks and you'd have to physically hack a cable, yes, but the way the system works it's nowhere near as secure as the designers were probably shooting for. When I would discuss ways to improve security with higher ups it was almost never hardware. We knew that part was secure, but you could never keep every PFC with access happy enough to trust them.

Yes there is. Join the military. Rise in rank. (preferably in some kind of it capacity.). Turn rouge and start going deeper than your access allows.

How to steal state secrets and get paid handsomely for doing t.

Or find someone with secret clearance and a gambling problem or a wife they don't want killed... It depends on your style.

Edit: weren't the Iranian nuclear facilities offline? Who knows but that the military is dumb enough to use thumb drives. I was on a base where they were saying they had to use some special secure drives... Who knows how secure those are, especially if you temporarily gain physical access to one.

In Australia, we recently had a teenager dress up as a police officer; he managed to get into restricted areas and even go out on patrol with other officers...
It's crazy to think that some teenager in a costume was able to infiltrate the police HQ and even go out on patrol with them. How the hell someone didn't realise he's not an officer is crazy. >_<

Of course not. I don't work for the government. If I did I wouldn't be running around on a forum posting silly theories about how to gain access to their secrets.

Having said that "going deeper than allowed" is the textbook effect of hacking. I'm already over the major barrier (I have physical access for he network). Now I just have to take up the task of finding weaknesses to exploit.

Of course not I don't work for the goverbment. If I did I wouldn't be running around on a forum posting silly theories about how to gain access to their secrets.

Having said that "gaining more access than allowed" is the textbook effect of hacking. I'm already over the major barrier (I have physical access for he network). Now I just have to take up the task of finding weaknesses to exploit.

Neither were the Iranian process control computers that Stuxnet infiltrated...
Granted, that wasn't a direct hacking but still, just because something is not directly connected to the internet does not mean it is uncompromisable

Humble yourself, Specialist. You of all people should know better than to pretend any security is absolute (remember Prvt Manning?). You should also know better than to assume every hacker out there has never heard of a 40-year old network (DISN). Also, you should know better than to make absolutist claims about zero penetration and a perfect history for DISN, when the Government has every reason to present perfection regardless of truth.

Regarding your specific points:

Correct: a leak is not hacking. But part of your training was (or should have been) learning that security at the physical and social levels are even more essential measures of security competency.

If the system was hacked, it certainly weighs on the security reputation of the company as a whole, regardless of how the rest of the network is configured. Remember when HBGary was hacked, primarily via social engineering? No one said their whole network was weakly secured. But some critical facets were weakly secured. The same is possibly true of Stratfor.

You could have been actually helpful instead of condescending and pointlessly vague. It would have saved you most of your follow up replies.

SIPRNET is merely a separate network from the World Wide Web/"Civilian Internet". It is by no means unique in this fashion: thousands of distinct networks utilizing TCP/IP but not physically linked to the "Civilian Internet" exist on various scales. It is a part of the Defense Information Systems Network, which has thousands of users across the globe, with many access points. "There is no way to hack in" is a foolish statement in the extreme. All networks are hackable - it just may take more work to get to some than others.

Also, at your MOS, you have no way to guarantee DISN/SIPR has never been hacked. You have what you've been told, same as anyone else.

Most of your other responses were much more even, so good for that. But you don't help yourself or anyone else by busting in with this "you civies don't know anything, the government is infallible" tone.

Not every computer in the pentagon is on this SIPRNET. There is also NIPRNET which is basically the normal internet like Reddit is on. When the pentagon is "hacked", they're only accessing that NIPRNET (unclassified) network.

Since you seem to have a solid knowledge of these things, I want to share with you a funny tidbit.

My Army ex-husband had a company CO for a very brief time in Iraq. He ended up getting disappeared (probably shipped off to some paperwork hole somewhere in the ranks) because he was caught passing around LARGE volumes of porn on SIPRNET.

Thrre is no way to crack the system as it does not physically connect to the Internet you're on right now on any form. Not one piece of hardware is shared. That would make it 100% crack proof from this Internet. So "hacking" into the pentagon or CIA or FBI will never get you classified material no matter how far you get in or how good you are.

It's similar to breaking into a home and saying that you also have access to the home next door since you're in this home. That's about how much sense it doesn't make when people think they can crack into the classified data.

Thrre is no way to crack the system as it does not physically connect to the Internet you're on right now on any form.

There's no way to attack it from the Internet. That doesn't mean there's no way to attack it. For example, through social engineering, through a traditional media-based virus (because people use the same removable media on secured an unsecured systems), and on and on.

This is exactly what happened with the SCADA systems scare a couple of years ago. These were non-Internet systems; some were inadvertently bridged to Internet-connected networks (whoops), and others were infected through traditional virus vectors.

So while I agree that defacing a web site doesn't typically mean you can pop to a classified materials network (that's what defense in depth is for), the protection depends a lot on tons of humans doing their job correctly. That means there's almost certainly some path in, even if not from the Internet directly.

It's certainly untrue that, as you said earlier: "There is no way to hack in, whatsoever." And the designers of the systems you're talking about know there are weaknesses, because they really do get risk management.

because people use the same removable media on secured an unsecured systems

This is actually false. Your unit and you will possibly lose your access if this is discovered to be done. Once any device gets plugged into the SIPRNET, it automatically becomes a classified device. If you so much as plug your phone into a SIPRNET computer, it legally now belongs to the government and becomes classified.

Besides even if that were true, these viruses wouldn't be able to report him since it will be looking for a path on the Internet while on the Intranet. It would pretty much void the malware.

I used the word crack for a reason. Cracking does not involve social engineering.

Your unit and you will possibly lose your access if this is discovered to be done.

This is my point. If you get caught. These are people we're talking about, and people do stupid shit. And it doesn't really matter if you get caught making a mistake if your data is already compromised.

these viruses wouldn't be able to report him since it will be looking for a path on the Internet while on the Intranet. It would pretty much void the malware.

The Internet is not the only way to exfiltrate data. I've seen malware that records data for "sneaker-net" back to Internet-connected systems, leveraging the use of shared removable media to bridge the networks.

Cracking does not involve social engineering.

We actually haven't been talking about cracking in the strictest sense anyway; we're talking about an attack, plain and simple. The realities of information systems mean it's useless to try and remove the human element from discussions of security -- it's artificial and leads to bad decision-making.

Anything that relies on humans making mistakes is social engineering. Trojans have a social-engineering component.

What you're failing to understand is that it is really bad to assume that any control or set of controls makes you "safe". There's no such thing as an information system that's completely secure. Period. A determined attacker with sufficient time and resources can always find a way in.

The entire practice of security is to make it so prohibitive that by the time the attackers achieve their goals, the information isn't in need of protection anyhow (e.g. it's no longer relevant or secret). Things like SIPRNET exist to limit (not eliminate) the technological means to disclose sensitive information, and the procedures around it are designed to be resilient (not impermeable) to human failures.

But the reality is, information on SIPRNET can be compromised by external attackers. It might be really hard (script kiddies aren't doing this), but it isn't impossible by any stretch.

Hacking historically does not involve using the internet or complex "hacking programs". Hacking entails gaining access to information not intended for you to access. This includes, but is not limited to impersonation over the phone, in person, or e-mail. Basically, most hacking is done by lying, exploiting people, or using social connections.

So yes, it may be inaccessible from the internet, but it is still very much 'hackable'.

For all we know it was an inside leak. That really wouldn't be hacking, would it?

Yes. The goal of the hacker is to obtain information through illicit means. This fits that definition.

Good security requires that access, even internal access, of sensitive data be logged, audited, transparent to, and monitored by any/all that are responsible for security.

One such mechanism is the "nuclear sub" approach. If there's sensitive user data in my organization and there is a very limited set of circumstances in which it may be accessed and only by certain people, one thing I can do is require two or more authorized users to give any one authorized user access.

So two or more authorized users must turn their keys (provide their passwords) in order for any one authorized user to obtain the data. This guarantees not only transparency, but that the access is actually monitored. This way even if a single employee becomes disgruntled or has his account hacked, no sensitive data can be viewed.

The first thing I thought of when I read about the existence of this is the software program described in the fictional, "it would be absurd if such a thing were possible in real life" show "Person of Interest" starring Jim Caviezel and that creepy guy from Lost.

There was an old comment that I can't copy and paste right now, but it had links to declassified and released CIA/FBI/general government agency activities from the 70s and 80s, and it was some scary stuff that was actual conspiracy theories. All of them were released BY the CIA. Who knows what they didn't want people to see.

After reading many of these comments, I think a lot of people are failing to see the implications of a system like this.

The reason why it's "bad" is not because it is watching what you do in a public space... It's not because it indiscriminately watches everyone...

Trapwire is dangerous, because it falsely believes that human behavior can be accurately predicted through computational observation. It builds a profile on you, and when you don't conform to your "normal" habits and patterns, it identifies an anomaly.

As an engineer who has worked with "big data" and developed similar such profiling algorithms for private interests, the reality is simple: no algorithm is capable of perfectly predicting human behavior--even assuming ALL possible data points were captured, there are still an infinite number of unknown probabilities that can and will cause false positives and miss critical evidence.

When a system this complex is used in this capacity, all too frequently you end up chasing ghosts of your own creation.

So you have a system that tracks your movements over time, and begins to develop a profile. It knows what your behavior patterns are, and it immediately knows when you're doing something "out of character." When it recognizes this, a human reviews the video, and presumably appropriate action is taken.

Now consider psychology. Our constitution tells us that people are innocent until proven guilty, but a system like this--by design--collects data points that appear suspicious. When the team of agents reviews the video you were captured on, they are doing so because the system flagged you as a threat. In their minds, they ALREADY BELIEVE you are a threat, and thus their focus is no longer on finding the truth, but finding evidence to corroborate your guilt.

It's called the reticular activation system, and quite simply, it means that we see what we are predisposed to recognize. Many psychological studies have shown that people over-value the truth of what they see with their eyes, and a system like TrapWire which undoubtedly logs video of every movement and behavior that could be viewed as "suspicious" will only exacerbate the "guilty until proven innocent" mindset.

How many innocent lives will be ruined and destroyed in the name of "security" before we finally care enough to do something about it?

Hopefully we'll wake up and realize it before we lose any semblance of control, but then again history has not been so kind to us in that regard. Baaaaaaaa.

It is false because human decision making fails to conform to any absolute mathematical framework. It is instead a probabilistic framework revolving around that tricky little concept called free will.

We develop predictive algorithms to model these behaviors, but their accuracy varies by their complexity of abstraction, and objective.

Imagine you're walking down the street, and someone walks up to you, putting a knife to your back. Biometrics indicate your change in posture and identify a threat... Your options are to either run, fight back, or give up your wallet.

Based on what we know about you (social habits, purchasing patterns, family disposition, etc.) we can make a highly accurate prediction of which you will choose.

But consider something with a much greater degree of abstract complexity; a domestic terrorist is a good example.

To identify these "threat patterns" requires a much broader net. The algorithm must not only analyze you and your actions, but also those of your network (social circle; acquaintances), in every context (situation & geographic location) to determine the probability of a "threat."

What we know by Chaos Theory is that improbabilities are ALSO part of this probabilistic framework (as paradoxical as that sounds).

So a given percentage of the time, the algorithm will throw very CONVINCING false positives. Because there is so much specific data, it's much more difficult for the agent to view such evidence objectively--the machine has calculated a threat, and we as humans are subconsciously programmed to associate facts, "data," and what our eyes see with truth.

It is false because human nature cannot be predicted 100%. If Trapwire saw me eating a blue popsicle every single day, it would erroneously assume that I'm going to continue eating blue popsicles every single day. When I decide to eat a red popsicle tomorrow, Trapwire does not understand and says this is wrong. This is a very basic example, disregard this in relation to the next point.

While the feds showing up at your house to ask you some questions would rustle your jimmies, it isn't really that bad. Except for the fact that

In their minds, they ALREADY BELIEVE you are a threat, and thus their focus is no longer on finding the truth, but finding evidence to corroborate your guilt.

You are no longer innocent until proven guilty. The federal authorities now believe you to be guilty and you will remain guilty until proven innocent. This is very dangerous because there is technically nothing to stop the federal authorities from having their way with you. What's worse is this is justified in their mind so they won't feel any guilt about it. Basically the odds are already stacked against you before the game begins.

It seems to me that since you only have to hire one security guard to sit around all day and twiddle his thimbs, this seems like an excelent security system that can save users both time and money. I see it as no different than being on camera at the bank

The difference is more perceived than real. People just don't like the idea of being watched and judged by a machine. The software is certainly not perfect, which means it can (will) occasionally label innocent people as potential threats, and will also occasionally not recognize actual threats as such. The failure rate may or may not be lower than that of human observers, but people perceive it as somehow worse.

And again, there's the possibility that all this data is being sent to the federal government. They've done this sort of thing before in secret, and even after they got caught, it was made retroactively legal, so they know they can get away with it. The fact that the company making the software is run by former CIA agents adds credibility to the theory. I'd go as far as to say it's not just possible, but likely.

No, no, no, you see, if the machine sees what it thinks is suspicious, then the camera has to be checked and rechecked by an actual flesh and blood person

And sure that it is possible for the government to watch the cameras, but the software does not make it any more succeptable to orwellian espionage. Just because the government, or anyone for that matter, can be doing something, it does not mean that they are. Remember: EVERYBODY is innocent until proven guilty, even the government

I understand all this. Not everybody does, and that's why it's a big deal. As I said, it's a perceptual difference, not a real one. The "innocent until proven guilty" concept is just that - a concept. In reality, the government presumes guilt first and only grudgingly admits innocence when they have no other option. Public perception (especially of the FBI/CIA/NSA) works the same way. It may not be right or fair or legal, but it's true.

Doesn't matter. That is what people believe. The OP wanted to know what the big deal is. That is the big deal. Whether it's correct or not doesn't enter into it. Several government agencies have made spying on Americans their job for the last decade. It will be assumed that any sort of spying that is technically feasible is actually happening. Statistically, anybody making this assumption is probably right.

Do you mean can Stratfor and/or the government spy on you through your webcam? Probably not. Trapwire is a pretty complicated system that must be installed locally. Say you have your amusement park with 200 cameras. You would buy the system from Stratfor and they would install a couple server racks and wire everything up. While there is certainly external access (for the owners), it's not like this is a system that just pulls in all video everywhere magically over the internet.

Though it is possible there is some other secret NSA project that allows them to access webcams and the like, they couldn't possibly have full time monitoring access like the trapwire system. If someone was sneaking a peek through your webcam 24/7 (which a trapwire-like system would require), you would surely notice the couple hundred GB per month in unknown data transfer.

Yes, it is technically feasible on an individual basis, but that's not what trapwire is for. Can the FBI/NSA strongarm an ISP or cell carrier into giving them access to your computer/phone and hiding the bandwidth? Sure. They've done it before and are still doing it regularly. But the whole point of trapwire is to process hundreds or thousands of feeds so that humans don't have to. Cowardly as they are, Verizon or Sprint isn't going to just eat that kind of bandwidth for that many people. Hell, if they were actually monitoring even 10% of all smartphone cameras, the entire cell system would shut down because there wouldn't be enough bandwidth left to make calls or browse the web. On second thought, maybe this is why AT&T sucks so hard.

If the government really wanted to spy on you, they would get access to just your cameras (with or without a warrant), and would have live people scrutinizing the feed. Trapwire just wouldn't work well on a large scale. Or more accurately, it wouldn't work secretly on a large scale. Our shoddy internet infrastructure just couldn't handle it.

But it seems that the premise that "they would need additional bandwidth to do that" doesn't make sense to me.

Verizon or Sprint isn't going to just eat that kind of bandwidth for that many people. Hell, if they were actually monitoring even 10% of all smartphone cameras, the entire cell system would shut down because there wouldn't be enough bandwidth left to make calls or browse the web

They wouldn't have to use anymore bandwidth, they would just have to allow the program access to the data already being transmitted - under almost universally assumed understandings of privacy and fully protected by multiple layers of national, international, and deep societal conventions - and the program could as you say,

the whole point of trapwire is to process hundreds or thousands of feeds so that humans don't have to

They would just need more storage, which I thought storage is cheap these days, and processing capabilities, which sounds like what this is.

the FBI/NSA strongarm an ISP or cell carrier into giving them access to your computer/phone..Sure. They've done it before and are still doing it regularly

The fear isn't that they're intercepting the video you're already sending around (they already are), it is that they're turning your cell phone camera and webcam on and spying on you when you don't even know it's on. As I said, transmitting video from even a small percentage of cell phone or webcam users 24/7 would require an enormous amount of bandwidth. More than our existing infrastructure could bear.

Storage is not an issue because the trapwire system works in real time. It has to work in real time, because if it couldn't, the backlog would constantly grow. If it took 10 minutes to go over 5 minutes worth of footage, then after a month it would be two weeks behind.

It is bad because it is creepy? that's it? I would even go so far as to say that all this uproar is just a misguided anti government/security agency rant. Some things done by the goverment are genuinely bad and horribly invasive. But all this thing seems to do is ''watch'' you, to see if you do anything suspicious/dangerous and to look for wanted criminals. Not much different than a human being doing it, in my opinion...

you remember that sonar system from the dark knight? its not as extensive as that, its probably not in your home, but it could be in many places. remember how morgan freeman/ god/ lucious said he would quit if this was implemented more than when bat man (a trusted source of crime fighting who only needed it once) needed it. that should say how bad this is. a big intrusion into your comfort of privacy.

Oh Jesus! Of course!! Once they attach fucking directional mics to the cameras and then have software and people sifting through that too, then we're really, really fucked. Proper 1984, Minority report type bullshit. We'll all have to get new eyes, and possibly vocal chords.

I watched that episode last night and it struck me at the time how much the system described sounded like Trapwire. Do you know how long the gap is between writing and broadcast? I know Sorkin used to write an episode of the West Wing a week at one point, but if he wrote TNR months ago then it is really clever stuff, coinciding wonderfully this week.

These are only cameras that are installed in private places by this company, right? Whenever you see a security camera anywhere you can assume you have no privacy. What does it matter if it's a rent-a-cop looking at me or a CIA guy, I mean really? I don't give a fuck, you know why? Because I am not doing anything illegal! So why care? Besides that, it's just a rumor about a shitty company. We have no idea how much of their crapware has been installed, if any at all, nor do we know how well it works.

What do you do when they redefine what is illegal and it no longer is in alignment with your views. At that stage it is too late, you join the ever growing list of people with something to be concerned about. The creeping scope of "Security" is relentless.

It seems to me that as long as the cameras arent in private places, than it is no different than being on camera without the system. There is no evidence that says that the government is watching. The only real difference is that there is only one security guard needed to watch the tapes as opposed to many. I would say that as long as the cameras with the system are not in private residences or roads, then the cameras do not infringe on privacy

Many people argue that if you have done nothing wrong, you shouldn't be worried about something like this, and you should have nothing to hide. When you poop, do you leave the door wide open? Probably not. (And if you're five, and you do, we're probably working on that.) Why is that? You aren't doing anything wrong, but that doesn't mean you don't want your privacy.

All precedents point to the fact that once we surrender any rights, we will not be getting them back. It's a one way trip.

No. But I don't poop on the sidewalk at the zoo either. Private things should be done in private, not in public. The cameras are only in public places... places where other people are already probably watching you anyway.

All precedents point to the fact that once we surrender any rights, we will not be getting them back.

You never had the right not to be seen while walking down the street. How is the installation of a security camera at the bank on the corner of the street an infringement on any of your rights?

In this particular context we're not even talking about the camera itself, it's about who is watching the camera. Why is it any different if a person is watching the camera, or a computer program?

At what point do private places cease to exist? To what extent do we forfeit our privacy in public? Sure, you may not be pooping on the sidewalk, but can I snap a picture up your skirt? Can I stalk you?

More to the point, the analogy was to argue that the need for privacy can exist even without, and without implying, wrongdoing.

To your last line, at no point is a computer watching cameras the end game. The cameras are either directly monitored by humans, monitored via computer for the purpose of reporting to humans, not monitored at all, with data stored for later analysis, or any combination of these.

What is different here is the scale. The difference between being monitored in a separate and unrelated way by disparate cameras and being monitored constantly with continuity between all cameras is akin to the difference between bumping into a stranger in a few separate places, and being stalked by that stranger.

The Bill of Rights grants us the right to privacy. If a private entity is collecting all this data, it is terrifying and unsettling. Unlike Google, for example, where it is possible to opt-out or protect yourself from such data collection, in this instance the only way to "opt out" would be to opt out of all public places with cameras, no easy feat especially when you consider how many are concealed. If the government is collecting this data, which seems to be the implication, it is an infringement upon my rights. These rights do not need to be justified, but they do need to be defended.

That is an exaggeration. No one is talking about forcing a government-monitored camera into your bedroom. A private place is a place where a reasonable person would expect privacy. For example: A public bathroom. You cannot expect privacy when walking down a street, where everyone else walking down the same street can see you.

can I snap a picture up your skirt?

No. That would be an assault. And it is a kilt, thankyouverymuch.

Can I stalk you?

Yes. Until I get a restraining order against you. It is creepy as hell, but not illegal follow someone else around. Planning or attempting a crime is in-and-of-itself a crime, but just following someone around? No. Paparazzi can film celebrities. Citizen journalists can film the Ecuadorian embassy as the government of the United Kingdom violates the Geneva conventions. We need more cameras, pointed back at those in power, not less.

More to the point, the analogy was to argue that the need for privacy can exist even without, and without implying, wrongdoing.

No, all the analogy points to in my opinion is the desire for privacy in some situations, not the absolute need for it. Does someone watching make it impossible to poop, or uncomfortable? You do not have the right to be comfortable at all times. I understand privacy when it comes to things like political associations, gender-identity, all sorts of other things. Privacy is very important, however I don't think that right necessary right extends to not being filmed while in a public place.

To your last line, at no point is a computer watching cameras the end game. The cameras are either directly monitored by humans, monitored via computer for the purpose of reporting to humans, not monitored at all, with data stored for later analysis, or any combination of these.

That is not the context of this discussion which is revolving around the use of the Trapwire software. If I see a camera I assume it is being monitored or recorded in some way. Hidden cameras are possibly a concern, but if I am in a place where my mother could be watching what I am doing I will act accordingly, even if she is around the corner and I can't see her right now.

What is different here is the scale.

I am resisting using the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" argument, but it does really fit here. If you have no problem with one camera watching you in one place, I don't understand why having lots of cameras watching you in public is a problem. The flip side is: they are protecting you, or at the very least gathering evidence that could be used in the event that you are the victim of a crime.

The Bill of Rights grants us the right to privacy.

Not in so many words, it does not. I think you're referring to this:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I don't think that being recorded when in a public place is unreasonable. Are you referring to some other part of the Bill of Rights? Which part?

I am Canadian, the first article of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms begins like this:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

There are limits on freedom, the line when drawn is already grey. Security cameras, are in my option firmly on the white side of that line, even if every single one of them is networked together.

If a private entity is collecting all this data, it is terrifying and unsettling.

Terrifying is being mugged, and knowing that no one is watching, no one is coming to help you. Asserting my right to freedom, and liberty while some thug has a knife at my throat will hardly be persuasive. I find security cameras reassuring, not unsettling.

These rights do not need to be justified, but they do need to be defended.

The right does not need to be justified, but the applicability of that right to this situation does. And I don't think you've met that burden.

True. What we are talking about is not the end of privacy, but it is certainly one step closer than we were before. As I've said, all the evidence suggests that our rights may erode, but they do not un-erode.

Can I stalk you? ...
Yes. Until I get a restraining order against you.

Firstly, it is worth noting that what is legal is not the same as what is right, and vice versa. From your tone I am inferring you agree that it is not a good thing that stalking is easy and permissible.

This is not a situation in which it would even be possible to get a restraining order. This isn't an individual doing the stalking, it's stalking embedded into our very society, into our public spaces.

We need more cameras, pointed back at those in power, not less.

Couldn't agree more. I actually wrote a thesis on the subject as it pertains to the Occupy movement. More on this later.

Does someone watching make it impossible to poop, or uncomfortable? ... I understand privacy when it comes to things like political associations, gender-identity, all sorts of other things.

Pooping is the metaphor, those other things are what are actually at stake in reality. Returning to the Occupy movement, we have seen a dramatic increase in the U.S. government cracking down on political dissent in regards to Occupy. We only like to call them "political prisoners" when they're in prison abroad, but many friends of mine, and nearly myself, fit that bill because of our engagement with the movement. There is a reason the WBC can send a few dozen people to picket a military funeral in an offensive but peaceful manner and be left alone, but when a few dozen Occupiers organize in their own apartments which they have every legal right to be in, they are met with swift and disproportionate police response. This is a more extreme case, but it is by no means an isolated one. This is just one example of citizens doing nothing wrong, and nothing illegal, but facing government repression because of the particular politics of the movement. Ostensibly, the Patriot Act, the militarization of the police, the post-9/11 rollback of rights and rollout of security is to protect us from the (overstated) threat of terrorism. In reality, the instances where this power is actually applied is most often to repress political dissidents and protest. This is no different. While less directly a form of control than a gun, the act of observing is itself an act of asserting power, something I'll elaborate on later, and a threat to those things you say a demand for privacy is reasonable for.

... if I am in a place where my mother could be watching what I am doing I will act accordingly, even if she is around the corner and I can't see her right now

I will assume the same applies to the police. That place where they could be watching is now everywhere.

If you have no problem with one camera watching you in one place, I don't understand why having lots of cameras watching you in public is a problem.

As I said, the difference is the continuity. If I am in the Wal Mart parking lot, I think it is perfectly reasonable that Wal Mart have cameras that monitor said parking lot. However, when someone besides Wal Mart begins monitoring those cameras, we're talking about something else entirely. This isn't a case of a property owner monitoring their own property. This is the government monitoring me (regardless of where I am) directly for the express purpose of ferreting out undesirable behavior, which as I've tried to illuminate with the Occupy example, may not be behavior that is wrong or illegal or dangerous to my fellow citizens. This is a panopticon, which is an important concept I will soon elaborate on in more detail.

The Bill of Rights grants us the right to privacy...

Not in so many words, it does not. I think you're referring to this:

Correct. But here's where it gets very tricky, legally.

The police are far more limited in their capacity to conduct surveillance than private entities. A great deal of surveillance that a private entity can conduct, even clandestinely, would be governed and regulated by warrants and individual state laws when law enforcement does it. What we have with Trapwire is law enforcement using those private cameras to collect data. This bypasses the checks on police power and is (easily arguably) a violation of not only our fourth amendment rights, but other laws that exist to regulate such behavior. Being recorded by private entities and the government are two very different matters.

The underlying issue here is that surveillance is another form of control, and another way in which power can be asserted over the individual. The Bill of Rights exists to limit the power of the government over the individual. There is a very real threat to the function of a democracy if this balance of power is disrupted. The power of a democratic government is supposed to be derived from the consent of the governed, not wielded over the governed.

I mentioned the term "panopticon" before, and it's one worth elaborating on. The panopticon is a theoretical prison design in which cells are arranged in a ring around a central guard tower. (pic) The cells would be constructed (perhaps with one-way glass) such that the prisoners could not see out of the cell, or each other, but one could see into the cell. A small staff of guards would sit in the central tower, from where they could see into any of the cells they wished. Though a single guard could not watch every cell, each individual prisoner would know they could potentially be observed at any time, but have no way of knowing whether they were in fact being observed at that moment. The power of observation in this manner would enable a relatively small group of guards to exercise their authority over a proportionally larger group of prisoners.

Michel Foucault, a very influential social scholar, expanded on this, using the panopticon as a metaphor for how control operates in society. (wikipedia on the subject) I highly recommend his book, Discipline and Punish, for more reading, but the wiki will tell you what you need to know.

Trapwire is the modern day panopticon, more fully realized than any other technology, policy, or design. If we are to trust our government with this sort of power now (which I don't), we must also trust the government of 10, 20, 30, 40 years time with this power. The repression of dissent and reclamation of power from the people by the government already alarms me, and it should be alarming more people. I am not someone who thinks that I'm gonna wake up after the next election and it will be 1984, but I am someone who has studied this sort of thing academically. When these things happen, they happen over the course of decades, in small steps. This step is a not-so-small one.

Thank you again for your well-thought-out response. I've educated (or re-educated) myself on a thing or two in the process of crafting this reply, I appreciate the opportunity.

As I've said, all the evidence suggests that our rights may erode, but they do not un-erode.

All evidence? The counter examples are legion. Just off the top of my head:

Abolition of slavery

The woman's suffrage movement

Civil rights

Labour laws

Gay marriage

The rights of individuals have been expanding over history, not contracting. Things like the patriot act, and the TSA are over-reactions to 9/11 and will sort themselves out in the fullness of time. Yes they must be fought against in the here and now, I am not arguing for complacency I am saying that eventually the good guys do usually win the war, even if a few battles here and there are lost. This post-9/11 decade is a blip. Pandora's box is firmly shut, and whats inside is growing, not dieing.

This is not a situation in which it would even be possible to get a restraining order. This isn't an individual doing the stalking, it's stalking embedded into our very society, into our public spaces.

The restraining order example was meant in the context of the stalker analogy. Extrapolating from the analogy to the issue at hand: the stalker is a problem to be dealt with whereas the camera system is a solution waiting for a problem.

What if the system is well-run, with laws, policies and procedures in place to limit access to the system to official business. What if a warrant had to be issued before the police could access the system. Sure the opportunity for misuse exists, it also exists in the case of guns, knives, fatty-foods, cars ...etc. This system is about helping those in need, and stopping the bad guys, both noble causes. Will there be collateral damage? Possibly. Implemented a system like this properly could have society-changing positive effects.

Imagine a world where a 20-somthing young woman could walk home in the middle of the night, without fear of rape. Imagine a world where parents could allow young children play in the park without fear of pedophiles. Imagine a world where a man could be openly gay, without fear of hate crimes. Imagine a world where criminals were punished, and the innocent were never charged. You're only seeing the negatives, what about the positives?

Returning to the Occupy movement, we have seen a dramatic increase in the U.S. government cracking down on political dissent in regards to Occupy.

I am not American, but I have been watching the Occupy movement (yes, the whole world is watching). It scares the hell out of me, because it could spark a second American revolution. It also excites me that the revolution is being live-streamed by citizen journalists, and gives me hope that a new kind of democracy and better kind of politics could be building itself as I watch.

The police are far more limited in their capacity to conduct surveillance than private entities. A great deal of surveillance that a private entity can conduct, even clandestinely, would be governed and regulated by warrants and individual state laws when law enforcement does it.

This is, and there is no other words for it: fucking evil. What you are describing is vigilantism by mercenaries, and needs to be stopped. This is why things like police and military can never be allowed to be outsourced to private contractors. This trend in the USA is horrifying.

Michel Foucault, a very influential social scholar, expanded on this, using the panopticon as a metaphor for how control operates in society. (wikipedia on the subject) I highly recommend his book, Discipline and Punish, for more reading, but the wiki will tell you what you need to know.

I've added Discipline and Punish to my Amazon wish list. I'd get the Kindle version immediately, however I have a moral objection to paying more for an ebook, then for a paperback. My reading list is already pretty long, but thank-you for the suggestion.

The discussion of the panopticon is something I am going to have to research more fully before I would feel right in responding to it. My initial thought is that this all really boils down to "who watches the watchers" in the end. In the 21st century, we finally have an answer to this riddle: We all do. Every cellphone with a camera means that each and every one of us has the ability to film whenever something wrong (even if it is not illegal) happens. So what if some of those cameras are run by the state? Everybody filming all the time means that the power between individual and state is balanced. You watch my back, and I will watch yours.

If we are to trust our government with this sort of power now (which I don't), we must also trust the government of 10, 20, 30, 40 years time with this power.

I guess this is the fundamental difference between us. I do trust that the people in government, specifically elected officials, are in the end fundamentally good people trying their best. I disagree with my Prime Minister, and the Member of Parliament that represents me in his government on a wide variety of issues, but I have to have faith that these are good men. Truly evil people are very rare. I believe that society is fundamentally more fair, and that the average citizen has more rights today then 50, 100, 2000 years ago. The trend being generally positive, one can reasonably predict a better future that is worth fighting for. I am not sure that a surveillance state is really something to fight against.

Good examples, all. But none happened without a movement and a serious years (or decades) long fight.

The rights of individuals have been expanding over history, not contracting.

I don't agree, but that's an argument I don't think I want to have at present. Suffice it to say that roughly the past century, rather than history as a whole, is most relevant here, and we've seen dramatic changes since the rise of neoliberalism in the 70's, and those changes have been, broadly speaking, for the far worse with regards to equality and actual individual liberty.

the camera system is a solution waiting for a problem.

I agree. I am also asserting that it is itself a problem. Working off my argument that TrapWire, and observational power in general, is an assertion of power by the observer (the government) over the observed (the governed), I see it as highly problematic that it is being done without reason, and I am unwilling to surrender my rights to a solution with no problem.

What if...

That would be wonderful. Unfortunately, it is neither plausible, nor the purpose of this system, nor possible via TrapWire alone. Referring back to the Occupy example, we cannot assume that the definitions of crimes and criminals are just (indeed, they frequently are not).

Even setting this aside, I am not willing to set aside privacy in the name of security in this way. All of the things you describe, if they are possible at all, can be possible without TrapWire.

"who watches the watchers"

Watching is fundamentally different when done by the government or by the citizens, a fact which the Bill of Rights recognizes. Reverse panopticism is a uniquely modern phenomenon, and I have written about it at length both in reference to Occupy, and to Anonymous, another social movement I have studied. While encouraging, only one side is backed by the force of law/legitimized violence. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we have seen how political dissent is dealt with.

I guess this is the fundamental difference between us.

I think you're right. I wish I shared your good faith, but my studies and my personal experience have given me no reason to do so.

If you believe the world would be a better place for you if you traded privacy for safety, I wouldn't hold it against you. I would, however, urge you to make sure you're getting what you bargained for. Firstly, how unsafe are we, really? How much of a threat do the things surveillance could potentially prevent really pose? Secondly, could the implementation of surveillance make you safer? If it could, will it? How, in actual practice, is surveillance being used?

You make some good points here, and even the ones I don't agree with are stated well but I just wanted to comment on this part

Terrifying is being mugged, and knowing that no one is watching, no one is coming to help you. Asserting my right to freedom, and liberty while some thug has a knife at my throat will hardly be persuasive. I find security cameras reassuring, not unsettling.

If you think these cameras are going to help with that in the slightest, you may find it unsettling to know that (in the states anyway) our supreme court has ruled there is no duty for the police to protect citizens from harm source. So I guess I don't really understand how these would provide anything but a false sense of security here, though I am open to an explanation.

They act as a deterrent to potential criminals. A criminal is less likely to commit a crime in an area where he knows he is being recorded, as such data can be used against him. Which brings me to the second point.

The data recorded by the cameras can be used as evidence to show that a crime was committed. Depending on the circumstances of the crime and the quality of the video feed, it may also be able to identify the victim and/or the criminal, further solidifying the victim's case.

I don't really understand how these would provide anything but a false sense of security here, though I am open to an explanation.

I would have the reassurance that the crime is being documented and that there is a higher likelihood that the perpetrator would be found, and successfully prosecuted. While I abhor any innocent person being found guilty of a crime they didn't commit far too often guilty people go free due to lack of evidence.

Well, I say you about hit the nail on the head. This isnt about spying, this is about corruption. This program has been public info for years, the private emails released on wikileaks dont tellus anything we didnt already know about trapwire

You never had the right not to be seen while walking down the street. How is the installation of a security camera at the bank on the corner of the street an infringement on any of your rights?

I do think I have the right not to have a guy see my face once, then spend the rest of the day checking all over town to see me again, and keeping detailed logs of how I move, not only by the locations I attend, but what I do there and even my stride.

We call that "stalking" and require that the police go through special protocols and have some prior suspicion of a person before they get to do that.

Trapwire is proposing that the government gets to do that to everyone, all the time.

I do think I have the right not to have a guy see my face once, then spend the rest of the day checking all over town to see me again, and keeping detailed logs of how I move, not only by the locations I attend, but what I do there and even my stride.

I assume you feel you have that right because you have done nothing wrong. What about the people that have done something wrong. Say some deranged person has abducted a kid and an amber alert is issued. Shouldn't law enforcement be able to have access to the grid of security cameras to locate, and bring the child back to its proper guardians.

Trapwire is proposing that the government gets to do that to everyone, all the time.

Is the problem here that there aren't proper laws, policies and procedures to prevent misuse of the system? What if the system were in place, but in order to access it a warrant had to be issued?

require that the police go through special protocols and have some prior suspicion of a person before they get to do that

Oh man, it's almost like I predicted one of your objections: there are already means for them to access this kind of data, they just don't get to turn it on and do whatever they want with it.

And no, I don't actually think that the massive danger posed by a centralized, all-permeating camera network is justified by our desire to save a few more children. There does come a point where your cost of safety is higher than the harm you're protecting yourself from.

What if the system were in place, but in order to access it a warrant had to be issued?

From a non-secret court; notifying anyone tracked that they had been observed (immediately following the period) or special provisions governing the specific cases under which such information may be kept secret (and for what duration); limitations on the use of data for other purposes; limitations on how long the data could be retained, and why.

Is the problem here that there aren't proper laws, policies and procedures to prevent misuse of the system?

Not merely that, but sufficient ones to have some chance of actually solving the problem; look at the awful mess that national security letters turned in to.

And no, I don't actually think that the massive danger posed by a centralized, all-permeating camera network is justified by our desire to save a few more children. There does come a point where your cost of safety is higher than the harm you're protecting yourself from.

Assume for a moment that the "massive danger" you suggest is not obvious to me, because it isn't. Give me an example, spell it out... I just don't get it. There is this nebulous concept that the state knowing too much is a Bad Thing, but its just knowledge, just data. How the data are used is whats important, collecting it is irrelevant.

From a non-secret court; notifying anyone tracked that they had been observed (immediately following the period) or special provisions governing the specific cases under which such information may be kept secret (and for what duration); limitations on the use of data for other purposes; limitations on how long the data could be retained, and why.

Are you suggesting some limitations? These sound fine to me. I am sure there are other limitations that make sense to implement that neither you nor I have considered. As with any complex system it will evolve, in this case as things are tested in the courts.

look at the awful mess that national security letters turned in to.

I don't know much about this issue, other than an quick read of the "National security letter" wiki, and that of Nicholas Merrill. From what I can tell, the NSL was a tool that the FBI may have been misusing in some instances. A plantif took his complaints to a court of law, and was eventually vindicated. This seems like a case where the system worked. One man took on the entire US government and won. What were you worried about again?

In the Truman Show, they could see him for every second of his life. Trapwire does not apply in one's own home, nor in some of the more private areas in public spaces, such as bathrooms. Where there are no security cameras, there is no Trapwire. Security cameras tend to exist only in public areas and some private institutions. And even then, Trapwire only applies to a certain subset of security cameras.

Not today, but later on, once control of the system has been passed on to new leaders, it may come to that. But by then it will be out of the box and we won't be able to seal it back in there so easily. Seal it now, I say.

I have read both, and count them among my favorite books. In the real world today governments already exercise control over us in ways that even Orwell could never have imagined. These novels, however are works of fiction that necessarily predict a dystopian future for dramatic effect.

Since we're recommending books now, I would suggest you read the works of Robert J. Sawyer specifically the Neanderthal Parallax trilogy, and the WWW trilogy to see how 100% surveillance society may not be a bad thing.

A man stalking his attractive neighbor is one example, but there are hundreds of scenarios. Being able to determine the location of specific people at specific times is a very powerful thing. Think corporate espionage, political sabotage, blackmail, etc...

You seem to think that trapwire is that thing that they use at the end of The Dark Knight as opposed to a program that watches security camera footage for suspicious activity and if it finds some alerts a security guard to check out the tape for himself. If the government were watching, than the only thing that they have to gain from trapwire is hiring less guys to watch less moniters

Sure. I am in a dark alley some criminal has me at gunpoint and is demanding my wallet or I will be shot. I look up and see a security camera with a good clean shot of the guys face. How does the security camera make me feel?

I don't know much about this, but based on their website, it has good intentions. (terrorist catching) But yes. It can be very. Let me repeat. VERY easily abused for the government to track somebody down that isn't a terrorist, or in fact, of any importance. It's being good now, but CIA, FBI, whatever. Nobody trusts them and for good reason. Trapwire is a surveillance tool. It only depends what they want to survey. Sorry I did the entire ELI5 in a response. I think I was going to be on topic... Whatever. Thanks for reading.

Excuse me sir, I need all your computer, website, and banking passwords so I can make sure you're not viewing or funding kiddie fiddler material. You can PM them to me. Don't worry, I have good intentions.

It's being good now

How can you say that? We just learned that it exists? We don't know what it has done or is doing.

We did not just learn of it's existence. The whole program has been public knowledge for 3-5 years, and we do have an idea of what it's doing, namely helping casinos blacklist some customers (which is perfectly legal might I add) and helping police follow the movements of suspects they are pursuing. This whole "scandal", if you can even all it that, is all because Anonymous leaked confidential E-mails from Stratfor employees that show signs of government and private corruption when it comes to selling the contracts to use the system. This whole mess isn't because of the spying, its supposed to be because of the corruption.

Honestly, this whole issue reminds me of the real story behind Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle. The public took a book that was about the horrible treatment of workers and turned it into a call for better food regulation. The reveal of the E-mails by Anonymous was about government corruption, and the internet has turned it into an outcry against government spying.

And we can trust them to label people as terrorists appropriately, right? Just like Syria is labeling the revolutionaries as terrorists, and we were once labeled as such by Britain while fighting for independence.

Go read 1984. There's a bit where Winston mentions the only limitation of Big Brother, that someone may not be watching the feed from the telescreen in question, it's just the possibility of the feed being watched that compels docility. Remove that limitation and you should understand the problem.

Rapidly gain a noticeable amount of weight, then lose it almost twice as fast, maybe even tone up to throw a third face in. It'll confuse the facial recognition and put your identity's priorities on the back-burner next to the anomalies pile.

Another issue I see with this program is that it can be used against you if the government for some reason decides you are a person of interest. The video could be used to substantiate a crime you are accused of because the cameras circumstantially show you in a location that is suspicious. The more tools we give the government to use against us the more danger we are in. Sounds like conspiracy theory stuff but I know people who have been victimized by the government. You see if the government thinks you are guilty of wrongdoing the burden of proof is on you, they have the resources to keep you in court until you go broke and you ultimately have to confess and plea bargain or goto jail. It is not fair and things like Trapwire will only make it worse.